Hume's criticisms and miracles yes/no?

Hume’s view

Briefly: 

Shouldn’t believe in miracles

“a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”

1.       “a man of such unquestioned good sense and education”

2.       “May persevere in it for the sake of holy cause” tales of surprise and wonder

3.       “ignorant and barbarous nations”

4.       Conflicting miracles

Only believe in testimony if not believing in it is more miraculous than the miracle itself

Indian Prince, pencils

Bible is a load of shit- “the falsehood of the bible, supported by such a testimony, would be more miraculous than the miracles it relates”. No one can testify that the Bible’s stories were true today

Plus side: Anthony Flew’s historical accounts. Not real physical, present account.

WEAKNESSES OF HUME:

-          - His definition of miracle is often criticised as he fails to recognise that the ‘laws of nature’ are descriptive, rather than prescriptive – they tell us what has been observed rather than telling nature what it may or may not do

-          So, if something goes against the rules of nature, it just is different from events that have previously been observed; it does not break a rule which must be obeyed and thus a ‘transgression of the laws of nature’ is not an impossibility – it is just unusual

- Swinburne: “one must distinguish between a formula being a law and one which is universally true and holds without exception”

-          His practical arguments are sweeping generalisations

-          Miracles are reported in modern western societies, contrary to what he states

-          Swinburne notes that testimonies are not the only form of evidence – what about physical evidence such as dry clothes, no boat or bridge – all signs maybe pointing to someone walking on water

-          Hume’s arguments against miracles do not therefore mean that miracles could not occur

-          Polkinghorne’s ‘new way’

-          CS Lewis: He saw naturalism are self-defeating because if we are just physical beings who are subjected to the laws of cause and effect then our decision to believe in naturalism is physically caused and we have no choice about what we believe. It is caused by physical factors.

-          Keith Ward hates him because Hume was a “notorious atheist who invented the phrase (violations of the laws of nature) to make miracles sound ridiculous”

Defending miracles:

Resurrection and Christ

Reveals God

Understood symbolically- no problem of evil, explains interactionist God. Epistemic distance needed

Hick’s eschatological verification principle

Prayer

God’s providence and action= special revelations

Rejecting miracles:

Interactionist is not omnibenevolent

Then raises question with omnipotence

God is the reason behind natural laws and therefore disasters. Has to intervene because he knows it’s not perfect vs. Abuse of free will, original sin/ Augustine- humans are to blame

Science can/ eventually will be able to explain miracles= psychological/ fakes etc.

Consider whether symbol provides any clear understanding of God

Consider whether symbol provides any clear understanding of God

Symbols are ultimately incredibly effective in communicating a clear understanding of God which is not so clear and abstract. A symbol can communicate a very complex concept that cannot be put into words into a clear visual image; which can then be universally understood. One example would be the symbol of the Dove in Christianity. The Dove is often used as the symbol for the Holy Spirit (coming to rest on Jesus’ shoulder during his baptism), a very abstract principle which many people have no clear understanding of. It is also used as a symbol of God’s peace and the salvation Christian’s are to achieve with the Holy Spirit in their souls. This is difficult to put into words and therefore a symbol like a dove can communicate a much clearer understanding.       Although some would say that only those in the religious sect would understand certain symbols (I.e. the Catholic symbol of the lighted tabernacle communicating the sacred presence of God), use of symbol can be understood outside of the “form of Life” that Ludwig Wittgenstein proposes in Language games and can then be used in wider society.

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) believed that all religious language was symbolic and communicated the most significant beliefs and values of humans- “symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate”. God, to Tillich, is “the ground of being”- the cause for everything and the meaning behind everything and therefore should be “man’s ultimate concern”. This being cannot be known in a personal way, making the understanding of it highly unclear. However, through symbols, such as Jesus’ work, the ground of being can be revealed. He said that symbols are something we can all participate in and participate in the event themselves. For example, we participate in the feeling of unity surrounding certain national flags. Although we do not have a clear understanding in words of God, common feelings associated with religious symbols are enough to comprehend a complex concept. Music, for example, can communicate with people on a different level to words. It is a form of expression which captures a mood and communicates feelings. Non symbolic language is hard pressed to connect with people on this level, and give a clear understanding of God who evokes certain emotions rather than clear comprehension. Paul Tillich argues that symbols can open up levels of reality which are usually closed to us and consequently open up dimensions of the soul; allowing a clearer understanding of God. Like signs, they point to these new dimensions and realities- “pointing beyond themselves to something else”.

Not only do symbols provide a clear understanding of God, they are incredibly useful in the community they are normally used within on a practical level. Randall states that symbols have 4 other uses in a religious community. They arouse emotions and make people act. For example, the cross as a symbol of sacrifice and love may arouse an emotion in someone who then goes on to resolve an issue in their personal life. Symbols then stimulates and inspires community action on a wider level. Amnesty International’s candle flame is a Christian symbol which has been modified to arouse feelings and actions on a practical level. Symbols allow people to express religious experiences non-literally which can often be ineffable and therefore hard for the skeptic to accept as the truth. Lastly, it clarifies and provides a clearer understanding of our experience of God. To Randall, God as an intellectual symbol is a “ripple of imagination”, a metaphor aptly describing the positive ripple-effects a religious symbol can have.

Although they do give a clear understanding of God, symbols have been criticised to be meaningless. We don’t know whether they are true or not, William Alston argues, and they cannot be verified or falsified because of their subjective nature, Paul Edward similarly argues- they simply “can’t convey facts”. This is beside the point. Symbols do not convey religious facts, their subjective nature is what gives them personal truth and understanding. Everyone interprets God differently. The Adam and Eve story’s story be interpretated to the level of symbolism the believer personally believes in.  Although their subjectivity can be a positive, the constant reinterpretation of symbols can become a problem. The Swastika is an ancient symbol employed by many cultures such as China, Germany and England from 3000 years ago. It was a widespread symbol with an overall but culturally variant symbol of positivity; either a good luck, power, sun and life symbol. The Nazis then used this symbol incredibly powerfully to symbolise Aryan ancestry and acted as justification for horrific holocausts and certainly stimulated action and emotion. This symbol’s meaning was certainly warped.

Symbols do provide a clearer understanding of God which doesn't need to be factual or concrete. A key part of religion is the emotions involved in belief and symbols communicate something which speaks to this rather than our logic. Symbols are the most effective in providing a realistic understanding of an abstract concept which communities can work with on a practical level and share experiences. 

38/40 To what extent do you agree with the view that ‘Dr Faustus’ is more a play of spectacle than one which creates fear and apprehension?

To what extent do you agree with the view that ‘Dr Faustus’ is more a play of spectacle than one which creates fear and apprehension? 

In ‘Dr Faustus’, there are many instances where a visually striking display presents itself to the audience, an especially important aspect in a play to engage the audience, ‘Dr Faustus’’ spectacles actually seem to create fear and apprehension more effectively together, shown by the genuine belief and panic following the seemingly real appearance of the conjured devils.

One such spectacle in Marlowe’s play is the seven deadly sins pageant for Faustus’ entertainment. Initially, the entertainment focus of the scene leans more towards a spectacle. However, its use as Faustus’ entertainment creates fear, as the audience know that Lucifer is using the spectacle to bring Faustus’ wavering resolve back onto the path to hell. This behaviour is also shown by Mephistopheles in Act Two Scene One when he “fetches him somewhat to delight his mind” with the stage direction- “Aside”. By speaking exclusively to the audience, the sense of deception towards Faustus is forged. In this way, the spectacle of the seven deadly sins creates fear and apprehension, as the audience are aware that it is used as deceit. The very procession is led by a ‘piper’, complete with connotations of deceit and transgression itself. The Pied Piper of Hamelin was a prominent Medieval German legend, appearing in Goethe’s work- the later reproducer of ‘Faust’- who led children to a questionable destination with a magical pipe. This could be a reference to Mephistopheles’ commanding nature and devious intentions on Dr Faustus. But it is more likely that Marlowe has employed a piper for the leader of this transgressive spectacle to comment on a wider scale about the delusive enticement of papal supremacy (in the 16^th century) and the sins it itself encourages in its wake.

This spectacle also creates fear and apprehension within the audience by showing Faustus’ flagrant disregard for the typically medieval allegorical warning. After Lucifer and Beelzebub show him “some pastime”, Faustus replies “how this sight doth delight his soul”. Faustus’ reference to a “soul” could be taken to be ironical, in which case displaying his laughable relationship with sin. This creates apprehension within the audience, as the mention of the soul in such disregarding and entertaining terms puts Faustus in even more peril; the audience’s “Christian heart lamenting” at the inevitable end of Faustus. Especially in a Medieval morality play, this relationship between sin and man would have demonstrated a punishment at a later time. Differently, the intimidation shown by Lucifer may lead to the lines being read in a pacifying tone, though still ironic. Depending on how the scene was played, the fear and apprehension may have traversed into Faustus, making his downfall more sympathetically accessible after being bullied into sin by the devils. His weak and cowardly behaviour is further indicated to by his eager complacency to “burn his books”- either for Lucifer’s sake at his first threat, or God’s. Through the spectacle of the seven deadly sins, Marlowe allows the fear created to be adapted in different performances to different degrees and subverts the 16^th century audience’s expectations of a morality play by developing a character immune to its warnings- or a Renaissance tragic hero.

Another spectacle which reoccurs in ‘Dr Faustus’ is the conflicting angel and devil which seem to be Faustus’ conscience. It is likely that the 16^th century play would have employed actors to play the parts of both angel and devil, turning the warning of Faustus’ conscience into a striking, oppositional exhibition for the whole audience. The Globe performance even presented the two as warriors and engaged them in dramatic combat, inducing apprehension within the audience. It was predictably most unusual for an audience to see an outward externalisation of conscience in a morality play and Marlowe has likely done so to defy the robotic stock characters who seemed to lack human free will to act as a warning. Marlowe’s depiction of both good and bad in one character doomed to be condemned as an example, creates fear within the audience; Faustus becoming more accessible to the audience’s sympathy and frighteningly- their empathy. In this way, the battle between good and evil typical in a Gothic text becomes an arena in which the audience are fated to acknowledge their similarity to an uncanny, transgressive character- a frightening prospect.

Faustus’ dramatic spectacle of the good and bad angel demonstrates a fear of redemption. The bad angel says at Faustus’ moment of weakness (or strength) “repent and devils shall tear thee in pieces”. This violent and aggressive threat is then directly opposed in the next line with the good angel responding “repent and they shall never raze thy skin”. Structurally, Marlowe is particularly effective in showing direct conflict between Faustus’ rejection of God and his thirst for knowledge and his obedience to God and social values. This could perhaps reflect the changing period of the time and the conflict between the bad angel’s Renaissance idealism- to “go forward” (repeated often throughout the play)- and the good angel’s pious and somewhat oppressive state. Typically at times of social conflict the Gothic arises, and Dr Faustus is a very early example of this. The structural positioning adversely shows Faustus’ constant ignorance of his obvious chance of redemption due to fear, and his feeling of hopelessness despite the audience’s awareness of his choices reflects a Calvinistic hopelessness. Marlowe has used the good and bad angel in ‘Dr Faustus’ to demonstrate that moral dilemmas are in fact just a spectacle to Calvinism and the disastrous consequences this has on people who in turn believe that redemption is “an illusion, fruits of lunacy that make men foolish”.

Marlowe uses spectacles in ‘Dr Faustus’ to comment on social fears during the 16^th century and provide a space on stage to subvert and question authority; a Carnivalesque-ish notion. Through spectacular imagery, the play not only serves for “pastime” but fear and apprehension are a natural result, effective in turning the audience’s world upside down as a Gothic text should.

34/40 Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to Gothic effects of the novel

Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to Gothic effects of the novel

Mary Shelley’s use of settings contributes to the reader’s sense of terror, whether witnessing a horror in the creation room, sensing fearful divinity in the Alps or the apprehension of a ruined romance on a honeymoon. Through this effect, these three settings raise question with the relationship between God and man, and the redundancy of judgement in the novel.

In chapter 5, the creation room employs the liminal and pathetic fallacy to evoke a feeling of oppression.  On a “dreary night in November”, the “rain pattered dismally against the panes”. Here, pathetic fallacy is used to discern to the reader that Victor’s excursions will inevitably not have a favourable outcome, creating terror. Moreover, the fact that the rain patters “against” the windows gives a feeling of entrapment, with the weather continuing on the outside, suggesting that Victor will not be able to escape from the crime he is committing in the “workshop of filthy creation. This use of pathetic fallacy could be an indicator of God’s disapproval, further shown by the personified description of the sky as “black and comfortless”, suggesting that Frankenstein’s sins are contemptible and that he will not be able to return as one of God’s children. Interestingly, if the weather is a signal of God’s judgement, the “comfortless” nature of the sky progresses the theme of neglect in the novel. Where the monster is neglected by Victor Frankenstein, Victor is neglected by his one creator. ”. On the other hand, this place of entrapment could be perceived as a sanctuary, with the wrath of God unable to touch the confines of the study. Although this does raise question whether Victor is exempt from God’s judgment, the liminality of the “half-extinguished light” suggesting a half-finished creation, the protection from the weather and secrecy of the room maybe reflective of the creation room as a “womb”. Mary Shelley may well have utilised this setting as a womb-like sanctuary to explore the concern of science replacing God as the role of creator, and God’s ‘inability’ to interfere. However, this claustrophobic setting may be reflective of Shelley’s post natal depression, having been pregnant for the duration of the writing process. The description of the creation room as a “cell” reflects Mary’s view of her life like living in a “dungeon”. Moreover, the personification of the “instruments of life” which are “gathered around”, depicts a sense of loneliness, perhaps felt by both Frankenstein and Mary Shelley. The rain-drenched, liminal quality of the creation room gives an effect of oppression, questioning God’s power of judgement and exploring the view that the sanctuary of motherhood is more a prison.

The Swiss Alps contributes to the sense of the sublime in ‘Frankenstein’, giving perspective and reminding both characters and readers of a divine role. The “immense mountains and precipices” and “mighty Alps” are used to overwhelm Victor Frankenstein, and remind him of his immateriality in comparison to the rest of nature and, perhaps, God. The sublime is a liminal threshold where the divine and mortal are closer- reminding the characters of the limitations of being human; something Frankenstein lacks.  This threshold therefore acts as an equalizer between the characters, with both Victor and the monster being reduced to mere mortals no matter how they came into being. The unparalleled power of the sublime is further shown by the description of the Alps as “belonging to another earth, the habitants of another race of beings”, perhaps indicative of Mount Olympus or even Victor’s arrogance, believing that he is a Promethean demi-God. His fall as a Promethean tragic hero and the burden of his crimes are predicted by the setting, the Alps also being grotesquely depicted. The abject nature of the trees “lying broken and strewed on the ground; some entirely destroyed, others bent” has connotations of mangled corpses, referencing the Monster’s murders of everyone Victor Frankenstein loves. However, it could show Frankenstein’s arts in the creation room and perhaps foreshadow his ruined creation of the monster’s bride later on in the novel.  Even in the Alps, something Victor found comfort in, his crimes are reflected in the barren setting, an effect Shelley has employed to contribute to Frankenstein’s guilt and add apprehension for the reader.

During Victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth’s honeymoon, light is employed to create an obscure and liminal setting which evokes terror and portrays a cynicism of Romance. A “transitory light” unfolds the newlywed’s story from joy to despair in the course of a night, and creates a (non-nuptial) threshold which creates apprehension for Elizabeth’s murder.  The unknown and nightmarish quality of the setting “obscured in darkness, yet still displaying their black outlines” creates a sense of terror and tension for the reader; the monster is lurking outside. Shelley also seems to be mocking romance, “the pale yellow light of the moon”- usually possessing romantic connotations- seems out of place, mocking Victor’s unfortunate situation. The “pale yellow” quality of it rather suggests waxy ill health than romance, foreshadowing Elizabeth’s death very soon afterwards. Although the supernatural quality of the moon in this setting has Victor in a “kind of panic”, it may be the romance that panics him.  In earlier chapters, he communicates his dread for the union as a “terrible marriage”. Although this could be because of the monster’s threat that he will be “there on your wedding night”, Frankenstein could be more terrified of the prospect of consummating his marriage with his “more than sister”. The light in the honeymoon setting aptly creates terror through obscurity, not only for the apprehension of the monster’s murder, but also for Victor’s fear of romance- due to his unknown sexuality and especially as the embodiment of the enlightenment in the 18^th century.

In conclusion, Shelley uses different settings to create terror, the main purpose of a Gothic noel- “to curdle the blood and quicken the beatings of the heart”. The use of the liminal, the sublime and obscurity explores the changing relationship between God and man in an era where science was influencing spirituality and Shelley’s views on motherhood.  

36/40 To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans are more monstrous than the monster in ‘Frankenstein’?

To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans are more monstrous than the monster in ‘Frankenstein’?

The humans in Frankenstein are much less sympathised with in Frankenstein, being of unlikable or unrealistic dispositions and although cruel to the Monster, are not monstrous. Although the monster commits terrible crimes, it is a result of an unloving society which makes him apparently ‘monstrous’, and his sympathetic portrayal makes it likely that it was Mary Shelley’s intention to depict society as monstrous, rather than any character in particular.

 The cruelty shown to the Monster could suggest that ‘humans are more monstrous than the monster’. He is unnamed, going by “wretch”, “devil” and “fiend”, and dehumanised- leading to his ‘monstrosity’. He has no true identity except that he is his maker’s creation- perhaps alluding to the feelings Mary Shelley has about her own identity and that of her infamous mother’s. The Monster then states that he will refuse to be the “abject of slavery”. During the 18^th century, Mary Shelley had witnessed the cruelty shown to African slaves in Bristol. The monster is therefore also a voice for these people in history, lacking freedom and also dehumanised. However, this term is used when persuading Victor Frankenstein to make him a mate “as hideous” as himself. Likening himself to a slave may well have been used as a rhetoric to appeal to Victor’s ego; that Victor is his master and God, the creature the slave making a base request. Victor doesn’t grant the monster his only wish, as God has granted all other creatures out of sympathy. Here, Victor is portrayed as ‘monstrous’. The monster, as an infant, is “bruised by stones” thrown at him by a village. This cruelty shown by humans is unwarranted, having been judged solely on appearance and having committed no crime. This prosecution based on his ‘monstrous’ appearance happens throughout the novel, emphasised by Frankenstein’s immediate abandonment and the character of the blind man as the only one who accepts him. Mary Shelley criticises humanity’s obsession with aesthetics through the unjust penalisation of the monster. “Bruised by stones” also has religious imagery- alluding to Christ’s betrayal and prosecution. The Monster is abandoned by his creator and prosecuted much like Christ is apparently abandoned by his Father and crucified. By the end of the novel, Frankenstein identifies with ‘Paradise Lost’ s Satan. The monstrous nature of humanity is seen even to turn God’s son into a demon.

It could be said that the monster is the most monstrous, murdering and destroying everything dear to his creator or that angers him. Justine, “grateful little creature”, William, a “smiling babe”, Elizabeth, “living gold” and “self-sacrificing”, are all murdered by the monster’s own hands. William dies with “the print of the murderer’s finger…on his neck”. A print suggests an immovable, permanent mark maybe on the monster’s conscience- being labelled as a “devil” forever- or even on Frankenstein’s conscience- these murders are an immovable stain on his life too. The theme of responsibility is explored using these deaths in Frankenstein, questioning whether the parent or offspring is to blame for a crime. Perhaps it is Frankenstein who is the most monstrous, failing to love and care for his creation. Furthering this interpretation, these characters are all flat and stereotypical- The women are all idolised and common to the Gothic stereotype of victim and domestic, William likened to a cherub. These characters therefore do not ring true, and the readers are not especially sympathetic. The effect of their deaths on the readers and, strangely, Frankenstein are muted by second-hand accounts of their deaths through letters and being smoothed over. Because of the lack of realism in these stereotypes, it is likely that it was not Shelley’s intention for us to sympathise with them. Instead allowing us to maintain our feelings for the Monster despite his horrendous crimes. Conclusively, the deaths of the minor characters do not make the monster more monstrous and the monster could therefore be more human than the humans, being the least flat and more realistic.

The issue of responsibility in Frankenstein questions whether the monster is more monstrous than the humans; the definition of monstrous as “inhumanly evil or wrong”. Frankenstein’s narrative begins with a childlike tone, expressing vulnerability and nativity at the world- “a poor, helpless, miserable wretch” who “weeps”. He gazes “with a kind of wonder” at the sun and has “no distinct ideas”. His first few moments on earth are marked with infantile awe at all things he experiences. His voice evokes sympathy within the readers as well as blame; Victor’s abandonment of his creature is made more unforgivable.  This abandonment and lack of parental love later fuels his resentment and hopelessness- “I ought to be thy Adam”. This could be an echo of Mary Shelley’s feelings of abandonment towards her dead mother, who she had never met yet was still widely acclaimed- strangers knew her own mother more than she did herself.  The rage felt by the monster makes him commit the murders of innocent people. However, he is not “inhumanly evil”. The deaths, arguably, are a result of a lack of human nurture and responsibility. In the monster’s voice, the voices of neglected children are often heard, and so the crimes he commits as a response to this treatment can never be inhuman. Shelley is exploring whether a criminal is born or made, the dehumanisation and bad treatment of the monster acting as the motor for his ‘monstrous’ actions.

Mary Shelley’s use of the Sublime is proficient in communicating to the reader that in fact, humans are as monstrous as the monster. The monster’s perception of the sublime is very similar to Frankenstein’s. At the monster’s first experience of the sun, he “gazes with a sense of wonder”, and his delight at a spiritually restorative spring is similar to Victor’s after his first bout of illness- the “divine spring…contributed greatly to my convalescence”.  The sublime is a place which both Victor and The Creature experience. The sublime is a liminal threshold where the divine and mortal are closer- it reminds the characters of the nature and limitations of being human. In this way, the sublime acts as an equalizer between the characters, with both Victor and the monster being reduced to mere humans no matter how they came into being or their transcendent aspirations.

The use of the Doppelgänger trope, conventional to the Gothic, also reminds the reader that the Monster is not as abhuman as he appears- and that the monstrosity of the monster is just an extension of Victor. Victor’s need to “pour a torrent of light into our dark world” using science, his desire for isolation and intellect contrasts the monster’s need for love, society and his desire to be human. This duality of human nature is used to “speak to the mysterious fears of our nature”, the monster represents Victor’s unaccepted, darker and ‘monstrous’ side of himself in the eyes of society. Mary Shelley employs intertextuality within Frankenstein to show how this side of his character haunts Victor in a physical manifestation. In Chapter Five, Victor quotes Coleridge’s ‘The rime of The Ancient Mariner’ to communicate Victor’s feelings of dread evoke feelings of terror within the reader; “because he knows a frightful fiend doth close behind him tread”. Although demonstrating the fear of his doppelgänger, this reference could contrastingly drive the theme of responsibility home. Frankenstein, like the mariner, leaves behind his responsibilities and runs away from his human duties. In this instance, Frankenstein is more monstrous than the monster and that the creature himself is only a produce of this lack of care.

Frankenstein does not have any ‘monstrous characters’, only misled and ‘miserable’ ones. I feel that even if you could argue that there are, they are as monstrous as each other. One of the main objects of the novel is to warn the readers of the dangers of being human- responsibility and ambition for example- and Mary Shelley leaves blame ambiguous in order to allow the reader to question their own morality and society. 

37/40 Faustus describes Mephistopheles as a “bewitching fiend”. How far do you agree with this view of him?

Faustus describes Mephistopheles as a “bewitching fiend”. How far do you agree with this view of him?

‘Dr Faustus’’ Mephistopheles is undoubtedly a “bewitching fiend”, a manipulative and spell-binding showman with a host of enchanting tricks up his sleeve. However, this “bewitching” quality may not lie in Mephistopheles, but in what he symbolises for Faustus. In this way, Faustus may be more bewitched by power than Mephistopheles himself, for example. Being bewitched also takes the blame off of the individual and onto the supernatural perpetrator. The audience can then begin to question whether Faustus had autonomy over his actions or whether fiendish puppetry was involved.

Mephistopheles’s bewitching nature may be hiding an unsympathetic salesman. This is demonstrated in Act Two scene 2, when Faustus is making his deal with Lucifer. After Faustus’ “blood congeals and can write no more”, Mephistopheles returns with “fire to dissolve it straight”; a business-like and practical suggestion which implies it has happened before. Faustus comes to realise this currency of souls too late, before he is dragged to hell in Act Five Scene Two. Faustus explains to the scholars that he wrote the devils “a bill” and the “date is expired”. The language of currency and business transactions in regards to the soul may have been critiquing the money involved with religion, especially Catholicism, during the Elizabethan reign. The pomposity and greed shown by Pope Adrian demonstrates this, using souls and religion for gain of wealth- “to condemn or judge, resign or seal or whatso pleaseth us”. Especially with Marlowe’s supposed role in the spying of Catholics, this critique would have been likely. This circulation of souls in ‘Dr Faustus’ may also be interrogating the confusion of loyalty with religion, being passed from one to another and therefore reducing its intrinsic human value. Arguably, Mephistopheles is presented as bewitching in order to accompany his salesman antics on Faustus’ soul and express Marlowe’s censored opinions on a fractured, secular culture.

Mephistopheles is not the “bewitching fiend” but rather the physical pleasure he can “cloy” Faustus with are. Mephistopheles often conjures bewitching specters after Faustus displays a wavering resolve, possessing the effect of swaying him back onto the path of hell. Mephistopheles’ last conjuring before Faustus is dragged into “gaping hell” is of Helen of Troy, a Succubus who certainly is bewitching. Faustus states that “heaven is in these lips”, a romantic but ironic statement for the audience who know that the succubus has nothing divine about her; quite the opposite. The morality play form of ‘Dr Faustus’ ensures the audience would have known that the more Faustus engages with the succubus, the more assured his path to hell is guaranteed- creating a feeling of terror. Heaven for Faustus is in something tangible and sexual, rather than something metaphysical. Faustus’ knowledge of Helen of Troy as a succubus is shown with his exclamation- “Her lips suck forth my soul, see where it flies”. The soul “flying” is a direct contrast to the saintly Old Man he has encountered and tormented earlier in the scene (Act Five Scene One), whose soul “flies unto God” and Faustus own usage of the word turns it into something sexual rather than sacred. However “flying” does imply a sense of freedom, suggesting that Faustus feels emancipated on earth rather than through God, a Renaissance humanist view that allowed the mind to expand without the weight of the spiritual holding it back. This wedding of the sacred and profane, and the emphasis on freedom also points to ‘Dr Faustus’ implementation of the Carnivalesque which would have been especially effective in the play-format, allowing a place of subversion on stage and showing Faustus’ obsession with the sensual. Faustus’ soul is hopelessly bewitched by the empirical pleasures he finds on earth that Mephistopheles can give him (subsequently portraying Mephistopheles as bewitching)- a humanist approach that dominated Renaissance thinking.

Perhaps, Dr Faustus finds the idea of wealth and power bewitching rather than Mephistopheles. Before Mephistopheles even exchanges words with the scholar in Act One Scene Three, Faustus orders the devil to “change thy shape” and is impressed by his obedience. He is delighted by how “pliant is this Mephistopheles”. “Pliant” suggests something yielding and easily shaped, demonstrating Faustus’ naïve belief that he will be in complete power of this fiend. Pliancy also has very physical connotations, again demonstrating Faustus’ need to feel tangible power rather than something illusory, which we later know to be the extent of his power over the devil. This need for power is depicted in the same scene when the devil has exited, “by him I’ll be great emperor of the world”. Faustus, therefore, sees Mephistopheles as a passage to power (“by him”) which he finds bewitching.

Although it is depicted at first that Faustus is more bewitched by the promise of power and wealth, as the play progresses we see a relationship develop between the two. Mephistopheles and Faustus refer to each other in possessive terms- “my good Mephistopheles”, “My Faustus” suggesting a hidden power play between the two- with both believing they are in possession of each other. Although Mephistopheles promises wryly that he will “be thy slave and wait on thee”, Faustus treats him more as a friend than servant- he even thanks the fiend after doing his bidding; “thanks, Mephistopheles”. However, this developing relationship may be more effective in depicting a bewitching homoerotic relationship between the two characters. Following a confusing battle with his conscious, and his devil predictably triumphing, Faustus states that he would have “dispatched himself” had not “sweet pleasure conquer’d deep despair” and “made music with my Mephistopheles”. “Making music” is an undoubtedly romantic gesture and also a sexual one, suggesting that Mephistopheles’ bewitching sexuality is a determining factor in whether he turns his back on salvation. Differently, Mephistopheles may be considered his salvation. In Act 2 Scene 1, Mephistopheles presents Faustus with tricks and states that he will “do greater things that these”. This line has a direct link to Jesus in John stating that “whoever believes in me will do works I have been doing and they will do even greater things than these”. This synoptic link to the Bible presents Mephistopheles as a subverted Christ-like figure and Faustus’ bewitching false messiah, leading him arguably to destruction rather than “eternal joys”.

Although Mephistopheles himself responds that yes, he “does confess it…and rejoice” that he was the spell that put Faustus under satanic influence; it is to give him too much credit. Firstly, Faustus places the blame on Mephistopheles in a tension-charged and desperate Act 5, directly after confessing to the scholars that he himself “hath done it”. His autonomy is discredited in extreme fear. Secondly, Mephistopheles’ arguably did not bewitch Faustus, but the temptation of physical pleasure and power. And lastly, Faustus’ pride and overreaching nature as a tragic flaw led him to take the path of sin before Mephistopheles even appeared in the play. Mephistopheles was merely a showy distraction from what Faustus knew and refused to accept all along. All in all, Mephistopheles “turn’d the leaves and led thine eye” but Faustus opened the book of his own initiative. 

A2 Religious Studies- Attributes of God (Philosophy) and Boethius


Dates: 475 AD- 525 AD

Now if thy mental eye conducted be

From light to light as I resound their frame,

The eighth well worth attention thou wilt see.

The soul who pointed out the world's dark ways,

To all who listen, its deceits unfolding.

Beneath in Cieldauro lies the frame

Whence it was driven; from woe and exile to

This fair abode of peace and bliss it came.^{[21]- Dante's  Divine Comedy}

Who was the guy? An Italian poet/philosopher/ translator and politician from noble birth
What did he do? Whilst in prison for treason, Boethius wrote the 'Consolation of Philosophy':

• Boethius despairs :-o
• Lady Philosophy comes to him in a dream and consoles him...
• The book then shows the dialogue between them- Boethius the questioner and Lady Philosopher the mouthpiece for his views
• Then obviously ends with a poem (translated firstly by 6th century King Alfred, then Chaucer's Boece...
  Where lewid men might lere wit,
  Whoso that woulde translaten it.)

Book V

Develops the relationship between foreknowledge and free will.
He explore the idea that whatever God foreknows is something that must happen= whatever must happen does not happen freely= If God foreknows everything we do- we never act freely

• Super confusing
• Here's a quote that may put it in simpler terms

"There seems to be a hopeless conflict between divine foreknowledge of all things and freedom of the human will. For if God sees everything in advance and cannot be deceived in any way, whatever his providence foresees will happen, must happen."


Boethius then goes on to say that if you fools think God's predictions might not happen, then you are confused.

 

"The outcome of something known in advance must necessarily take place"

 

Then comes the first problem

If God has foreknowledge of everything, and if everything that God has foreknowledge of is certain... humans have no free will!! In Boethius' terms:

"There can be no freedom in human decisions, since the divine mind, foreseeing everything without possibility of error, determines and forces the outcome of everything that is to happen

 

DUH!

Problems abounding!

 

• No human action is ever free!
• No good action should be rewarded!
• No bad action should be punished (*cough* get out of jail free card *cough*)!
• No action can be described as 'good'
• No action can be described as 'bad'

etc. etc...

 

But then Lady Philosophy enters in all her glory. And has a solution!

At first, she gives lovely poetic and musical answers which Boethius laments sound nice, but only console him temporarily
 
Lady Philosophy replies with indignant sass that:
 “None of this is meant to be a cure for your condition, but simply a kind of application to help soothe a grief still resistant to treatment. When the time comes, I will apply something calculated to penetrate deep inside.”

In short, here comes the tough stuff. Be prepared...

 

You can have God's foreknowledge and human free will, fool!

 

Humans are confused and don't understand the difference between God and humans, and humans and prawns...Yes prawns...

Humans are able to understand things that prawns cannot. Example: humans can drive a car through reason and prawns, not to our knowledge anyway, cannot...

Likewise God's reasons and abilities are so above our own that we cannot put limits on his foreknowledge.

Lady Philosophy: God's foreknowledge and our free will just shows God's eternal nature

 

• We are inside time and bound by it, whereas God exists outside time and is free from it

 

"Only that which comprehends the whole plentitude of endless life endless life together, from which no future thing nor any past thing is absent, can justly be called eternal"

 

 

Boethius makes a critical distinction:

1. Conditional necessity- if you knew someone walking down the street at the moment= would have to be doing so at that moment
2. Simple necessity- necessary due to things involved- not God's knowledge of it.

Conditional necessity does noes not involve simple necessity.

 

 

A man walking forward is necessarily walking forward but is not necesitated to walk forward.

God's knowledge imposes only conditional necessity. He knows an act will take place= must take place but humans can act out of their own nature necessarily!

 

The absence of simple necessity allows for free will. An act can be free even though God knows it will happen. This means that free will and foreknowledge are compatible:

• human free will is secure!!
• rewards can be applied!= just
• punishments can be applied!= just

BREAKDOWN:

1. WHAT YOU KNOW DEPENDS ON YOUR NATURE

2. ETERNITY AND TIMELESSNESS PART OF GOD'S NATURE

3. IF YOU SEE ANOTHER HUMAN BEHAVING/ DOING AN ACTION= NOT FORCED INTO ACTION

4. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMPLE AND CONDITIONAL NECESSITY

 

Man seeing something present before him does not make the thing necessary

 

 

God seeing something as present does not make the thing necessary either

BUT: God can know that something will take place and also know that it will not take place by necessity

          God foreshadows something= can't be any other way and in that case happens by necessity.

 

Perhaps in other ways, it could be seen that he changes roles from a mystic (simple necessity) and an observer (conditional necessity) but he is both at once.

 

"The same future event is necessary with respect to God's knowledge of it, but free and undetermined if considered in it's own nature". That's a wrap, Boethius.

 



Critical views;

• Joel Relihan (1993, 187–194; 2007)= Consolation should be understood ironically as an account of the insufficiency of Philosophy to provide consolation, by contrast with Christian faith.
 
• Peter Geach (1916- ) uses the analogy of playing chess with a grand master. Although you are free to make a move where ever you like, the grandmaster will ultimately win the game!

Question!


• ‘Boethius was successful in his argument that God rewards and punishes justly.’
  Discuss.

Mark scheme says:

 

AO1

• Candidates may begin by placing this particular aspect of beliefs about God within the general discussion about God’s attributes, briefly discussing the context of believing in a God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

• Others may begin by exploring the Boethian understanding of the nature of divine knowledge, exploring what he meant when he said that God’s knowledge was eternal. They may perhaps unpack the meaning of eternal knowledge being the ‘simultaneous possession of boundless life, which is made clearer by comparison with temporal things’.

• They may also discuss the distinction Boethius makes between two kinds of necessity,namely the simple kind and the conditional kind. This may lead them to explore what he meant by the difference being located in the addition of the condition
 
• They may also explain the way that Boethius is keen to point out that while God may know

  about an act eternally, if we look at the nature of the act in itself it is entirely free. It is for

  this reason that Boethius comes to the conclusion that God can justly reward and punish.

AO2

 

• In their assessment candidates may evaluate the extent to which Boethius in his attempt to
  solve the problem of a good God knowing what we are going to do and not influencing
  these actions in any way still being able to reward and punish ends up describing a God
  who can barely be accepted as a Christian God
• They may for example explore the consequences of a God who is so deist and uninvolved in His creation being the same God who Christians believe became incarnate to save mankind from their sins.
• Others may argue that having solved this issue in this way Boethius raised legitimate questions about the accepted Christian understanding of God

• :-)